<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (4) TMI 558 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170093</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appeals and set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order, granting consequential relief to the appellants. The interception of the truck and seizure of Gutkha were deemed corroborative evidence of clandestine removal. The appellant&#039;s motive for overstating consumption was to align with Gutkha production. The consumption of supari was clarified based on input-output ratio and test reports. M/s. Balaji Trading Co. was considered a dummy unit. Penalties on individuals and entities were upheld, with findings of suppression of facts and misdeclaration. The standard of proof required was a preponderance of probability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 558 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170093</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appeals and set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order, granting consequential relief to the appellants. The interception of the truck and seizure of Gutkha were deemed corroborative evidence of clandestine removal. The appellant&#039;s motive for overstating consumption was to align with Gutkha production. The consumption of supari was clarified based on input-output ratio and test reports. M/s. Balaji Trading Co. was considered a dummy unit. Penalties on individuals and entities were upheld, with findings of suppression of facts and misdeclaration. The standard of proof required was a preponderance of probability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>